This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Before I begin the GA Review, let me apologize for the delay of this article's review. I see that it has been up for some time. Over the summer here there have been major backlogs on WP:GAN, due to the painfully small amount of active GA reviewers of late. I would encourage you (and everyone else) to review an article or two on the queue to help us all out!
I would also suggest splitting the article into multiple smaller articles. Though there is no policy dictating article size, WP:SIZE recommends that articles be no longer than 50 KB. When they get longer than that, users become hesitant to review them, and so the progress on the article is slowed significantly, as you have seen. —Ed!(talk)18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
It is reasonably well written:
Not Yet
"However, from what little we know of Ephorus, historians are generally disparaging towards his history." - Why is this? Also, avoid using "we" in the article.
Explained
"This is based on an ancient scholiast's annonation of a copy of Aeschines's works." -Does the scholiast have a name? Is there some reason that they are annonymous? Please make this more clear.
The annotation is literally that; anonymous ancient jottings in the margins of a surviving manuscript. I have tried to make this clearer in the text.
"The Siege of Eion may be similarly dated by the scholiast to Aechines." - There is a lot of passive voice such as this in the article. It should be reworded in active voice to something like, "The scholiast to Aechines similarly dates the Siege of Eion to this time" or something more clear.
Done
Delian League is linked to as the "main article" for three sections streight. This is not necessary, the first link covers the point so the next two should be removed.
Done
"Military Expansion of the League" and "Internal Rebellions" sections are short at one para each. Both should be merged into other larger sections, or made into subheads at least.
Done
"Although Herodotus does not cover this period in his history, he tells us as an aside that..." Once again, don't use "us," the prose should be devoid of any references to the reader. "We" and "us" are used a few more times in the prose and should be removed.
"However, it is impossible to be certain about this." - It would be best if this statement were referenced by a modern historian, so it doesn't appear to be a statement of opinion.
Changed to be clearer
"Given Ctesias's infamous inaccuracy, and the fact that this engagement is not mentioned elsewhere, and nor does the name of Charitimedes appear elsewhere, it is not clear whether this account should be accepted." - This also sounds like a statement of opinion, particularly using the word "infamous". It should either be reworded more neutrally or referenced.
Removed as unnecessary anyway
Is there any way that the primary references can be put into one of the {{citation}} templates? I don't know if there is one specifically for them but it might look better.
I don't think there is one. I will have a look, but this seems to be the standard way of citing them.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass No problems there.
Overall:
On Hold this is a very well written and exhaustive article. It has comparatively few issues facing it, and it can be promoted. —Ed!(talk)22:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please put relevant sources which is referring that Wars of Delian League against Persia finished with their victory? Note important issues:
1. Delian campaigns against Persia lasted till 449 BC when Cimon has died (or has been killed) at Cyprus and Athenians were defeated in Egypt, so Delian navy retreat from Persian Cyprus and Egypt. Both sides signed Peace of Callias and that was official end of their conflict.
2. As for my rhetoric question - there is no any relevant source which claim Delian campaign against Persia was victory, because it was clearly not (due to their disasters in Cyprus and Egypt). Delian League was forced to sign peace with Persia because of First Peloponnesian War against Sparta, which lasted at precisely the same time.
3. Name of this article is "Wars of the Delian League" and it's referring just to conflict with Persia (till 449 BC), but Delian League also participated in Wars against Peloponnesian League (led by Sparta) which lasted till 404 BC when Delian League was dissolved. It's obvious that article is made as part of Greco-Persian Wars series, but it should be renamed as "Wars of the Delian League against Persia" or Delian-Persian Wars; other option is to include later Delian conflicts (including Peloponnesian War) inside this article. BUT, then the whole purpose of this article lose it's sense as part of wars against Persia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.33.41 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from territorial changes in the infobox, which indicate that Persia lost control over Thrace, the Aegean and the western coast of Asia Minor: the Peace with Persia explicitly emphasizes the terms of the treaty, while the Aftermath section indicates that shortly afterwards the Delian League evolved into Athenian Empire. And moreover, the League wars "shifted the balance of power between Greece and Persia in favour of the Greeks". Personally I see nothing smelling like defeat here. So whether the Peace of Callias existed or not, it does not affect the victorious outcome. There are a number of supporting refs on that right in the article. Brandmeister[t] 16:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume citation 77 is in reference to one of Simon Hornblower's books, but none are listed in the References section. This should be fixed or removed. --CimonT (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
